Epic Upper Deck Fail!!!

[Drewk86a]

ITG has come under some criticism for reusing the same picture more than once.

That cannot compare to Upper Deck using the same Eric Lindros photo in back-up-back Black Diamond sets.

Attachment 67548Attachment 67549

So sad!!!!!

[mortuus]

is that so big of a deal really? not the first time really.

[robu84]

UD has used pictures in rookies in different sets as long as i can remember too.

[Drewk86a]

Really? I can understand that happening with rookies as there are not always alot of pictures of them. Even spreading the same photo over several different sets (if only a few available) is understandable. But a marquee player? In back-to-back sets?

I don't recall seeing that before.

[Johnsson]

But a marquee player? In back-to-back sets?

I don't recall seeing that before.

This was discussed last year, it happens, there's some examples in this thread: https://www.sportscardforum.com/threa...Cards-Lidstrom

Allthough, I agree that it was a rather lazy job by UD, they should have more AS-pictures of a guy like Lindros

Personally I thinks it'd be cool if the companies made a "action-shot"-insert, consisting of 3-5 cards with focus on a big goal or a big hit, like this (but as an insert):

[flopfish]

UD used a different one in Artifacts:


However, BD is the one set I am fine with them using the same photo for certain cases like this because it has to be a really crisp photo for edited to isolate it from the foil, especially when it comes to parallels.

[centrehice]

UD and Pacific all through the mid and late 90's used countless photos more than once. This is not an uncommon practice.

In the case of Pacific, when it had issues of similar year, the players card number on the back was the same from issue to issue, and legible. I really enjoyed knowing that certain players held the same card number through different issues, unlike Upper Deck whom have manufactured some issues that you cannot tell the card number without the aid of the Hubble Telescope because the card numbers were so significantly small or obscure.

[RGM81]

Hardly epic relative to some of their more egregious errors. Still, a nuisance for player collectors.